A whistleblower who raised concerns about a study that his research unit carried out with a major drugs company is to have his allegations investigated by the medical journal that published it.

Dr Aubrey Blumsohn, a bone specialist and senior lecturer at Sheffield University, warned the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research more than a year ago that he had grave doubts about some of the research it had published under his name.

The journal has confirmed that it will hold an inquiry into Blumsohn's concerns. He claims that findings about Procter and Gamble's osteoporosis drug Actonel were released and published under his name, but he was not allowed to see the full analysis of the data. The data - looking at the effect of the drug on women to see whether it prevented fractures - was collected in his Sheffield laboratory in 2002, and then analysed in P&G's headquarters in Egham, Surrey.

In November 2004, the researcher wrote to the journal, explaining he might want to dissociate himself from the findings. He wrote: 'I am first author on both abstracts and have serious concerns about the analysis which has been presented in my name, as first author. Is there a mechanism for comment or dissociation?'

Members of staff contacted him, but nothing was ever investigated. He was due to speak to the journal's editor-in-chief, John Eismanon, by telephone last June, but this never took place.

Last week, after The Observer and the Times Higher Education Supplement raised concerns about the research, the journal said it would investigate.

There is no suggestion that Actonel is unsafe or does not work for women with osteoporosis. Procter and Gamble maintains that it is standard industry practice to limit researchers' access to data. They claim they did give Blumsohn enough access to the data for him to understand it, and that they attempted to answer all the questions he put to them.

Blumsohn was suspended from his post at Sheffield University last September on grounds of misconduct, after talking to journalists and professional bodies about his concerns. This was 'conduct incompatible with the duties of office', according to the university, which says it has made every effort to investigate his claims but cannot discuss details of the case since they are confidential.

Part of Blumsohn's case centres on the way in which articles are 'ghostwritten' by professional medical writers who work for the drugs companies, then published under the name of the independent academic to give them more credibility. Ghostwriting and a lack of access to data for independent researchers are just two issues that worry academics. For years, scientists have argued that Britain needs a statutory body to investigate such problems, as well as to detect the most serious cases of scientific fraud.

Professor Ian Kennedy, chairman of the Healthcare Commission, has said there must be proper protection for whistleblowers. He said they were often ignored, victimised or labelled as pathological.

The Committee on Publication Ethics, which includes editors of medical journals, was set up in 1997 to address concerns that researchers were coming under greater pressure to accept limitations set by the companies that fund them. The committee will meet in January to look at how journals might check scientific probity before publishing articles.